I Need To Step Up My (Photographic) Game A Notch

The Linda J, Peggy Jean and Andrea D; Poquoson, Virginia (click to enlarge)
Fuji X-T1, 16-55mm f/2.8 lens @ 31.1mm; 1/950th sec. @ f/8; ISO 200

I've come to realize that I needed to step up my photographic game a notch or two. Lately, I have been mostly using a couple of the lovely Fuji prime lenses as well as the delightful Fuji 16-55mm f/2.8, none of which has built-in image stabilization.  Upon checking some of my images for sharpness at 100% in Lightroom CC (I have to pixel peep because many of my images are submitted to my stock agency), I found a small number of images (compared to what I typically see—none), to suffer from a bit of camera movement!  Drat! Looking back at the metadata it seems this may be more from slow shutter speeds due to me not holding the camera as steady as it should be held.  In either case, it is an eye opener for me and must be rectified.

I've been using some form of image stabilization for about 15 years now and, evidently, I've become somewhat complacent.  Additionally, I suspect, I've become a bit sloppy in my technique.  It seems I've come to count on image stabilization, whether in-lens or in-camera, to compensate for slow shutter speeds or any small hand movements that I may now possess as I've aged.  In other words, without even realizing it myself, I've become lazy when it comes to my overall technique.  I've come to count on technology when I still need to practice excellent technique.  I need to pay closer attention!

As I recall, Canon was the first major camera manufacturer to introduce an interchangeable lens with image stabilization.  I think it was in the mid-1990s and it was a 70-300mm zoom.  I remember playing with that lens at my local camera dealer's store and, although the IS was slow and primitive by today's standards, I was amazed to see the stabilized image when looking through a camera at a focal length of 300mm!  It was kind of amazing at the time.

Miss Kay, Poquoson, Virginia (click to enlarge)
Same as above @ 29.2mm; 1/450th sec. @ f/11; ISO 200

I first started dabbling in digital photography in the summer of 2001 (a Canon Powershot G1; 3.2mp) but still primarily shot film. I liked what I saw and the first digital camera I purchased was a Canon Powershot G2.  Four whopping megapixels!  But it produced some lovely images. Prior to fully switching to digital in 2004, my primary photographic tools were a medium format Pentax 6X7 and 35mm Leica rangefinder cameras. When I made the decision to fully switch to digital, I bought into the Nikon system as I owned a bevy of older Nikon lenses that I had used before the Leica chapter of my photographic life.  In 2004, I made a commitment to go fully digital and purchased the Nikon D70.  It came equipped with a nice little 18-70mm lens, which was image stabilized.  Since then, as most of us have, I pretty much utilized IS in the lenses I have purchased.

More recently, I've come to rely on the Olympus in-body image stabilization, sometimes referred to as IBIS, and I found that liberating!  Wonderful!  Marvelous!  I could handhold down to about 1/5th second even with a short tele lens.  Unbelievable.  I wish all camera manufacturers utilized IBIS.  IBIS can be used with just about any lens, current or old, and the lenses are typically smaller and less expensive.  When I moved to Fuji, I was again back to in-lens image stabilization, which is very well done in the Fuji cameras.  But Fuji didn't incorporate it into their prime lenses nor the 16-55mm f/2.8 lens.  That brings us back to the present.

So, it seems that I have inadvertently become lazy in two ways.  First, by negligence I've let my technique for solidly hand-holding a camera and lens slip somewhat and second, I've used image stabilization when it shouldn't be used.  The rule of thumb, more or less, is to not use image stabilization at shutter speeds of 1/500th second or faster. Additionally, we are encouraged to only use it when necessary, not all the time.  I have routinely violated both rules.  I guess I'm a rebel!  Yea, right...  Lol  Keep in mind that those rules change as IS gets better and more versatile.

Great Blue Heron 3/4 bqcklit, Poquoson, Virginia ; (click to enlarge)
Same as above, @ 51.6mm; 1/500th sec. @ f/5.6; ISO 200

The good news is that I've recovered good technique rapidly, which causes me to believe it was always there, just not used or my attention to it was negligent.  

I've done two things to regain what I thought I had lost.  Not only do I specifically pay attention how I hold and brace my camera, I now play close attention to the shutter speed and focal length combination I am using.  With IS and subjects that aren't moving, shutter speed hadn't been an issue.   Additionally, I'm using a tripod more than I have in the past.

Being that I'm presently almost exclusively using an APS-C sized sensor camera, the prevailing wisdom is not 1/focal length of the lens (that applies to 35mm sized film or sensors, I have always learned), but one must use the reciprocal of the effective focal length for smaller sensors.  (Really the equivalent field of view is more accurate as a statement.)  For a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera, the rule would dictate 1/50th of a second minimum, but on an APS-C sensor camera the rule would dictate 1/75th sec.  Now is that true?  I'm not sure but right now, that is where I am placing my minimum shutter speed until my skills are fully re-honed and are back where they once were.

The lesson to be learned for me is to always use good technique, no matter what technology is available to assist, don't be sloppy or negligent in the basics of good photography and remind yourself frequently to pay attention to all aspects of your photographic work.

Thanks for looking. Enjoy! 

Dennis A. Mook 

All content on this blog is © 2013-2016 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.